Is the catholic RSV bible a good pick?

File: buhble.png (267KB, 601x835px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 601x835px

>>8726224
While I am deeply sympathetic to Catholicism, I avoid "Catholic" devotional materials as they are almost never in their complete form and always have some sort of agenda. I always try to approach from a scholarly point of view, or if I want to read for literary merit, KJV.

>>8726224
I haven't read that one, so I can't give it fair appraisal. It really depends on what capacity you're reading it. I'm not Catholic, but perhaps you could explain what you want out of a good bible, how familiar with it you are, &tc. for some other helpful anon to point you in the right direction.

>>8726232
Not him but I have the New American Bible which is a Catholic edition, and all the foot and endnotes relate to post Vatican II encyclicals and church stances.

TRASH
R
A
S
H

>>8726232
The most objective version and easy to read.

>>8726244
objective and easy to read oppose each other, to a certain extent. Because of the nature of the translations, objective implies lots of footnotes and explanation. However, I'm inclined to also recommend Oxford annotated.

>>8726229
thanks for replying, whats the difference between the new KJV and the old one?

>>8726265
Not him, but steer clear of the NKJV, it's bastardized to hell. The main superficial difference is that it updates old English words like "thou" and "thee." From my experience neither the NKJV or KJV are particularly objective, as objectivity takes a backseat to prose, but the KJV is something of a meme on this board, and I will be fought tooth and nail on this.

>>8726280
Damn. Then what bible should I get?

>>8726284
which*

>>8726284
see
>>8726229 pic

File: jh.jpg (27KB, 343x499px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 343x499px

The RSV is good. The only oddity I've found is in the Lords prayer where they use "and forgive us our debts" instead of "and forgive us our trespasses". It just doesn't sound right.

I just got the Didache bible a few days ago and it looks very good. Commentary for all the books, essays, maps, you can't ask for much more than that. The Ignatius bible is good too and I think it goes a little further in depth since it only focuses on the NT.

The RSV-CE and the RSV-2CE (the latter being the book posted in the OP, the "Ignatius" Bible) both contain different verse renderings than the regular RSV. The latter also contains the rendering of Isaiah 7:14 of "almah" as "virgin" instead of "young woman": young woman is the more accurate rendering in the context of Isaiah 7 and 8, but since the Greek Septuagint incorrectly rendered it as virgin (and the Septuagint is the version of the Hebrew Bible available in Jesus's time), the "virgin" aspect gets quoted in Matthew 1:23.

If you're worried about getting the most of the biblical canon in your bible (e.g. the whole Apocrypha), then get the "RSV with Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals", not the "RSV Catholic Edition".

Then, if you want the Catholic order, just use:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible

>>8726244
The NRSV, via the New Oxford Annotated, is probably your best bet.

How does the New Oxford Annotated compare to the Harper Collins Study Bible?

>>8727161
Obviously, the notes will be different. From what I can tell (with the NOAB sitting on my lap and through the preview pages of the HarperCollins via Amazon), I can't say one is significantly different than the other: they both are fairly objective, they both include their own cross-references, they both have tables and maps and all kinds of helpful things.

The difference in some of those extra things might simply be placement on the page and within the books. I know the NOAB, for instance, can sometimes put maps in random places: they might be useful when reading straight through, but they can be bad to refer back to.

---
Other small aesthetic things that probably won't/shouldn't matter:

The regular NRSV has its own section headings (see the version on BibleGateway as an example), which serve as "better" divisions of the text than the chapter numbers from about a millennium ago (I personally think they're better and more useful than the old chapter divisions, but YMMV).

HarperCollins mostly sticks to the NRSV's section headings and includes them in the main body of the text, just as a regular NRSV Bible would. The NOAB uses its own section headings and keeps them in the notes section, so that the biblical text (and the chapter/verse numbers) is the only thing above the note divider. While it may not be hugely important, I find that the section headings make re-reading and looking up information on your own a lot more efficient; however, on first reads, they can "spoil" things -- each study bible's notes (NOAB's in particular) spoil things just as badly, though.

The HarperCollins uses a horizontal line to separate the notes and the biblical text. The notes take up no more than 1/3 of the page, usually less; they're also double-columned, like the biblical text, and use the same font type but slightly smaller size. The NOAB doesn't use a horizontal line to separate notes from the biblical text. Here, the notes can take up around 40-45% of the page, and it happens fairly often; however, the notes are sans-serif (compared to the text being serif), are in a single wide column, and smaller font size than the main text.

Both include the NRSV's translation notes in the bottom-right corner of the page.